home

Domenici on Iglesias: Must Be Some Other November

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:12:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bald faced lying when everyone can see you are lying:

Domenici then got on the phone for a conversation that lasted "one to two minutes," Iglesias recalled. "Are these going to be filed before November?" Domenici asked, Iglesias testified, referring to the kickback case. Unnerved by the call, Iglesias said he responded that they were not. "I'm sorry to hear that," Domenici replied, according to Iglesias, who added that the senator then hung up. . . . Domenici stressed in a statement issued yesterday that Iglesias "confirmed" that the senator never mentioned the November election and that he had no idea why the prosecutor felt "violated."

Amazing.

< GOP Federalism in Action: US Attorney Pressured To Assist GOP in State Election Contest | Giuliani: Evangelical Criticism Mounts >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Domenici on Iglesias: Must Be Some Other November | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Did Domenici and Wilson really think a call to a (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by TexDem on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    USA about an ongoing case wouldn't be perceived as some sort of pressure? They both have been around long enough to know that there are other methods of inquiry about an ongoing case rather than direct contact with the USA's office.

    Any reasonable person who takes a personal call from a sitting Senator or Congressperson about an ongoing case as would view that as pressure. Their only regret is that they are being called on it. I can only assume they were told that Iglesia was a team player and would take his medicine. And it appears he was until they called into question the quality of his work.

    What do we call this? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Noor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    The Midwinter Massacre?  Leahy got it right:  "Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy compared the firings to the Watergate dismissals. 'Not since the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Nixon forced the firing of the Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox, have we witnessed anything like this,' he said."  (from http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com)

    The decent thing would be for Wilson and Domenici to resign (I won't start on Cheney, I'll be here all damn day if I do), but that won't happen.  They're cogs in the corruption machine, and criminal enterprises don't just let people walk away from the organization.  I know, that's a bit strong, but I'm no longer sure that what we've been seeing over the last several years is mere venal incompetence and bullying.  The pattern is too consistent and the ripples go out too far for it to be merely that.

    Parent

    They would have to have a sense of shame (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by TexDem on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:44:06 AM EST
    or a conscience for that to happen which means (like you said) it ain't going to happen.

    Someone before has suggested that we should try going after them under RICO since they are obviously a criminal enterprise. I'm not an attorney (nor do I play one) so I can't address that but there are enough here to offer an opinion. Can a citizen or a group of citizens (taxpayers) file a RICO case against a sitting elected office holder who is engaged in an apparent criminal enterprise to defraud the taxpayers? (I leave it to you to give the specifics.)

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    There is a RICO case against these creeps already.

    Parent
    Wow!! I had not seen this before. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Noor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    How did I miss seeing this, the filing is three years old.  Was it buried?  What's the disposition of the case now?

    Parent
    Dunno (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    I just remebered seeing it. I haven't heard about it since.

    Parent
    They all should be brought up (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Electa on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:55:09 AM EST
    on RICO charges.  This is nothing less than  organized crime and while we're at it let's throw in the dumping of crack cocaine under Reagan & Bush 1 into the ghettos so they can be hit with drug carteling and money laundering.  The corruption of these thugs go back that far.  They're all crooks.

    Parent
    Nice one from Leahy (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:04:19 PM EST


    Parent
    If they didn;t think it would be perceived (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    as pressure they would NOT have called.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by NearlyNormal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    Anytime you go into a prosecutor's office or call him on the phone for a case you are signalling an interest in the case.  Might be that you are the defense atty, then that is one signal, if you are a victim that would be another signal, if you are a political adversary of the accused-that would be the clearest signal of all.  Not a single spoken word would be needed.

    Parent
    a small question (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    I have a question here.

    We've been reading a dozen reports about the administrations interference with criminal justice in cases in the jurisdictions handled by fired US prosecutors.  Has it occurred to anyone to check on pressure on US prosecutors who didn't get fired?  Have they laid off investigating Republicans, fast-tracked prosecuting Dems or tried to derail elections?

    Apparently one of the new appointees was responsible for a voter suppression plan in Ark.

    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:03:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Vote on issuing subpoenas (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by prairiefire on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    to several high ranking DoJ officials will be held tomorrow by Senate Judiciary Committee according to TPM Muckraker.  It's good to see solid follow-through on this issue.

    Didn't President Clinton Fire 90 + US Attorneys? (none / 0) (#4)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    I hate to use this as an excuse for President Bush....so I won't- but President Clinton , I believe, instructed Janet Reno to fire a over 90 US Attorneys.
    He did so when he CAME INTO office (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    And that is standard, accepted procedure, for a new president to put in place his own crop of prosecutors.

    This action by Bush is UNprecedented.

    Do your homework.

    Parent

    not to mention ... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    ... that no one in American history has changed the law to allow their interim appts to bypass the advice and consent of the senate.

    Parent
    So presidents can fire US Attorneys (none / 0) (#8)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    (In President Clinton's case-over 90), when they first take over office?
    And this is OK?
    That is some kind of precedent...

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:01:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    It is SOP for an incoming pres to replace most if not all USAs.

    Why? Because the Pres wants USAs that, the pres hopes, shares his politics. The appointments of the new USAs are political plums, given, often, to reward the appointee's loyalty to the party/Pres.

    Have congressional members called USAs during other administrations? Yup.

    Have USAs been fired in other admins mid-termish? Yes, presumably when there have been performance issues and/or when there are other party/pres loyalists who's turn it was to be rewarded.

    Why all the outcry over these firings? Buncha reasons, mostly partisan.

    Have other USAs been fired due to not toeing the party line before this adnmin? Probably, although we'll likely never know for sure.

    Is it against the law for a USA to be fired for not toeing the party line? Nope.

    Parent

    got links? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    Have congressional members called USAs during other administrations? Yup.
    Please provide links of congress calling USA'a regarding and during investigation.

    Have USAs been fired in other admins mid-termish? Yes, presumably when there have been performance issues and/or when there are other party/pres loyalists who's turn it was to be rewarded.
    Show proof please.

    Parent
    Only Three (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:37:58 PM EST
    In 25 years.

    link

    Parent

    NPR (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    said USAs have been fired in the past due to those issues, if you have proof that NPR is wrong, please show it.

    Fari enough, I'll rephrase the other one:

    Have congressional members called USAs during other administrations? Common sense would say yup, though we'll probably never know for sure.

    Parent

    so no links? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:32:07 PM EST


    Parent
    numbers (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    Have USAs been fired in other admins mid-termish? Yes, presumably when there have been performance issues and/or when there are other party/pres loyalists who's turn it was to be rewarded.

    3 in the last 25 years.

    Parent

    Domenici on Iglesias: Must Be Some Other November | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment